Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Unit 5 > Case Law > Flashcards

Case Law Flashcards

1
Q

The neighbour principle

A

Donoghue v Stevenson

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Three part formulation for establishing duty in a novel situation (foreseeability, proximity, fair just and reasonable)

A

Caparo Industries plc v Dickman

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Existing duty of care

A

Nettleship v Weston

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

(Caparo) Would a reasonable person have foreseen a risk of harm to the claimant as a result of defendant’s acts or omissions?

A

Smith v Littlewoods Organisations Ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

(Caparo) Was there sufficient proximity between the claimant and defendant?

A

Watson v British Boxing Board of Control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

(Caparo) Is it fair just and reasonable on public policy grounds to impose a duty of care?

A

L and Another v Reading Borough Council and Others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Courts are reluctant to impose a duty on statutory authorities (1) but not blanket immunity, generally duty will not be imposed for an omission (2)

A

(1) Hill v CC of West Yorkshire

(2) Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Sorrow and grief cannot be compensated

A

Hinz v Berry

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Primary victim is someone in zone of danger to whom physical harm was reasonably foreseeable

A

Page v Smith

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Established requirements of secondary victim as being; psych harm reasonably foreseeable, close relationship of love and affection, physically close, witness accident/aftermath with own unaided senses, sudden shock.

A

Alcock v CC of South Yorkshire

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Standard of care is objective - did the person act as a reasonable person would have done?

A

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

When deciding standard of care, no allowance is made for an individual’s lack of knowledge or experience

A

Nettleship v Weston

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

When deciding standard of care, it is accepted that children do not have the same awareness of risk

A

Orchard v Lee

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

The standard of care is not normally adjusted to reflect the personal characteristics of the defendant

A

Dunnage v Randall and Another

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Professionals must achieve the standard of an ordinary skilled person exercising their special skill

A

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Medical professionals must act in accordance with the standard of reasonably competent professionals at the time provided the standard is reasonably supported

A

Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Harm must be reasonably foreseeable - a person is not required to possess expertise beyond that of others in their own profession at the time of the event

A

Roe v Minister of Health

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Has a breach occurred? Magnitude of risk - more likely the risk, the more foreseeable it is deemed to be and the more care should have been taken to avoid

A

Bolton v Stone

19
Q

Has a breach occurred? Vulnerability of claimant - the higher the risk of serious injury, the more caution is required

A

Paris v Stepney Borough Council

20
Q

Has a breach occurred? Importance of D’s objective - if engaged in a socially desirable activity at the time of the breach, it may be justifiable to take an abnormal risk

A

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council

21
Q

Has a breach occurred? Cost of avoiding harm - it is not necessary for D to go to extreme lengths to protect against a risk

A

Latimer v AEC

22
Q

Causation in fact - the but for test

A

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee

23
Q

Causation in fact - but for becomes more likely than not

A

Page v Smith (No 2)

24
Q

Causation in fact - where an injury is indivisible, the but for test applies and it must be proved that it was more probable than not that D’s act caused the harm (over 50%)

A

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority

25
Q

Causation in fact - where injury is divisible, the material contribution test applies so D is liable if they contributed to the risk or to the harm. Liable for the proportion of damage to which they contributed.

A

Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw

26
Q

Causation in fact - industrial disease cases where it is scientifically impossible to determine who is at fault there is no need to prove on balance of probabilities D caused harm, just that they materially increased the risk

A

McGhee v National Coal Board

27
Q

Causation in fact - successive causes of harm. (1) further deliberate or negligent act will not end tortfeasor’s liability (2) natural disease will end it

A

(1) Baker v Willoughby

(2) Jobling v Associated Dairies

28
Q

Novus actus interveniens - unforeseeable act of third party

A

Knightley v Johns

29
Q

Novus actus interveniens - entirely unreasonable act of claimant

A

McKew v Holland

30
Q

Causation in law (remoteness) - was the kind of damage reasonably foreseeable

A

The Wagon Mound

31
Q

Causation in law - Thin skull rule, victim should be taken as found, d is liable for full extent of injury as long as some harm is foreseeable

A

Smith v Leech Brain

32
Q

Control Test

A

Yewens v Noakes

33
Q

Organisation Test

A

Cassidy v Minister of Health

34
Q

Multiple Test

A

Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions

35
Q

Vicariously liability - mutuality of obligation

A

Carmichael v National Power

36
Q

Example of relationship between organisation and individual being “akin to employment”, meaning it could be fair to find the organisation vicariously liable.

A

Cox v Ministry of Justice

37
Q

Employer can be vicariously liable for an act “closely connected” to the employee’s role

A

Lister v Hesley Hall

38
Q

Ex turpi causa - complete defence if claimant was engaged in a criminal activity at time of alleged negligence

A

Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority

39
Q

Ex turpi causa - inextricable link (a person cannot recover damages arising from a punishment imposed for an unlawful act)

A

Gray v Thames Trains Ltd and Another

40
Q

Violenti non fit injuria - complete defence if claimant freely consented to risk of harm in full knowledge of risk they were taking

A

Stermer v Lawson

41
Q

Contributory negligence, partly to blame for accident

A

Froom v Butcher / Fitzgerald v Lane

42
Q

Contributory negligence, put themselves in dangerous position

A

Davies v Swan Motor Co (Swansea) Ltd

43
Q

Courts are reluctant to find a rescuer contributorily negligent

A

Harrison v British Railways Board

44
Q

The dilemma principle - courts are less likely to find a claimant contributorily negligent if they were in a difficult situation

A

Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council

Unit 5 (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions